The study looks at photography rather than film and ethnography rather
than cultural studies or semiotics. Photographs were an early part of
ethnography, associated with 19th century British colonialism.
Photographs show that despite an attempt to be objective, colonial
ideology is also present. Early European sociology might well have used
photographs as well, but did not do so [Harper imagines Engels
taking photographs of Manchester slums]. Instead, American sociology
introduced pictures instead -- of rural and urban life or of working
and living conditions. The Chicago School in particular took pictures
of actors 'in their typical social environments' (242). However,
photographs still tended to be used naively , to confirm textual
accounts. The rise of quantitative sociology displaced all fieldwork,
including ethnographic photographs.

Early anthropologists used photography -- Malinowski, and even
Levi-Strauss [his photographs were apparently published in 1995].
Bateson and Mead were the first to use photographs to generate theory,
showing a series of actions in rituals, for example, and recording
material culture and things such as agricultural techniques. Visual
anthropology appeared in a textbook in 1967, when pre-industrial
societies were still seen as subjects for the 'authority of the
anthropological voice' (243).

Becker saw the need for a visual sociology using documentary
photography. Photographs could be used together with sociological
theory, and be subjected to the usual 'concerns for validity,
reliability and sampling' (244). Interest was aroused by a documentary
photographs of the 1960s -- studies of US culture, suburbia, portraits
of the rich, the lifestyles of hippies, the anti-war movement, life in
prisons, the life of migrants and the American poor [with some
very useful references on page 244].

There has been a recent interest in 'research which addresses the
polysemic quality of the image' (244), and photographs are used to open
dialogues about meanings rather than to reveal the underlying truth.
One technique here is 'photo elicitation' (245). Bourdieu used
photographs in his Distinction [as stimulants to elicit responses
about tastes] [there several other examples cited on 245].

Harper's own work covers the history of dairy farming in the USA, when
farming shifted from informal corporate rural forms to agricultural
industrialisation. Harper discovered an archive of photographs taken
shortly after World War 2, sponsored by Standard Oil charting the
impact of petroleum. This archive recorded important aspects of
agricultural life including 'seasonal routines of planting and
harvesting'.

On offering his analysis to his respondents, Harper discovered that his
own photographs reflected his own critical views. Thus

photographs of people with pleasant expressions taken with
wide-angle lenses appear to suggest well-adjusted and stable people at
ease in their own backgrounds and environments. Actually, respondents
varied in terms of their agreement with the critique of
industrialisation, and although these views are recorded, they are not
represented in the portraits. The naturalistic locations convey a sense
of solidity, whereas the actual farms were often 'economically
and socially vulnerable' (246).

Aerial photographs of farm layouts indicates the uneven
process of industrialisation. However, these photographs do not
accurately record changes -- from a working farm to 'a restored
manor' (247), for example.

The issue is how to use photographs to show varied perspectives. One
possibility is to show debates taking place, but there are some farmers
who simply saw an industrialised future as inevitable. Another problem
is to photograph 'structural factors' (248). Photos can show
change, but structural forces may 'be best represented by visual
metaphors, collages and other visual constructions' (249). [I am
reminded of the dilemmas of radical film-makers here, such as
Eisenstein using collage and particular compositions to show class
conflict and dialectic progress].

The Standard Oil photographs clearly offer a distinct interpretation of
events, and this has been affected by their sponsorship -- SO wanted to
prove their public image, to appear 'as a vital and patriotic
component of American society' (249). Although they did show every day
life, they also offered 'ideological messages' (249). They
endorsed technology, which was associated with the future, images of
mass production, the gradual appearance of tractors and other machinery
instead of horses, and marvellous new products such as DDT. They do not
show any problems of adjustment, nor any threats to the way of life
produced by technology. 'capitalist exchange... [is represented
by]... buyers and sellers of cattle meeting to evaluate, buy and sell,
presumably to the advantage of all' (250).

The visual conventions also affect the ideological implications. The
bulky cameras of the time were used with tripods to photograph
'landscapes and portraits... and they have a painterly aesthetic',
offering more-or-less a 'stereotype of rural life' (251). It was not
easy to photograph continuous processes, or to experiment, at least
until the arrival of rolls of film. The camera adopted naturalistic
points of view, usually focusing on this single subject in the centre
of the frame. This compares to modern photographs which reveal wide
perspectives and complex or confusing interactions, and even
'alienation and discomfort with one's surroundings' (253) [with
some examples on 252 and 253].

Some photographs are clearly arranged, necessarily so to permit
adequate lighting, implying 'settings of bright lights and
clarity' (254). Of course, such techniques were essential to record
anything at all.

Becker once pointed out that photographing individuals using the
standard reflex camera tended to 'make the individual seem larger
than life' [since the camera was held at waist height so that the
photographer could look into the viewfinder].

Such conventions 'have been identified with modernism, which is
itself frequently equated with sociological naivety' (254): visual and
analytic simplifications go together.

Traditional gender roles are also apparent. Women are included, and the
SO project included two female photographers. Women's perspectives
therefore do appear -- women's work and activities, women as the
primary subject. However there are 'no images of women's full role in
the productive activities of the farm' (256), nor are there any
images of domestic labour.

It is important to recognise these flaws, but also to use them
critically. The ethnography is compromised, but it should not be
rejected totally. Hopper took a pragmatic stance. The photographs were
'useful in elicitation interviews which was' (257). At least it was
easy to read the ideological components. The photographs were
also 'rhetorically effective' (258), conveying a familiar sense
of reality, and that 'exceptional intimacy because it invites
analysis, imagination and memory' (258).

Harper's own modern photographs also attempts a documentary look, and
he is aware that they also represent specific political positions. For
example, sometimes they offer visual comparison, so that 'an
object placed next to another gains its meaning by reference to the
second' (259), and this is clearly 'value laden'. Harpur
does this to 'question the present and future', however, for
example by questioning the ecological impact of industrial farming.
Harper also uses framing techniques, such as photographing cows from
the perspective of a farm labourer to illustrate how the animal, or
parts of it, becomes an object rather than a whole creature. Harper
also adds meanings with captions. While the SO photograph captions were
intended to provide information about dates and activities, Harper uses
captions to extend the meanings, sometimes based on empirical data or
social theory.

Overall, ethnographers should use photography deliberately to make
ethnographic arguments, 'with some understanding of how
photographs construct meaning' (263).